War in Heaven (No Atheists)

[Crunchy Cat]

You're arguing from the wrong direction Crunchy. His logic is as follows:

God has told him he's right, therefore you can either agree or go against God's word which automatically makes you incorrect. Facts don't enter into it.

Hahaha . I'm not the one arguing with Cool Skill. It's reality that is and he knows that if he feels he has received divine blessing to take a flame bath in a roaring fire without harm then reality will burn him to a crisp.

Theology is afraid of reality as it's far more powerful than the idea of 'God'.

 

[lixluke]

I am going to thrash your claim(s) to pieces in this response.

In other words, there is no point for an individual that is more interested in intellectual discussion than trash discussion to continue reading past this sentance?

 

[lixluke]

You're arguing from the wrong direction Crunchy. His logic is as follows:

God has told him he's right, therefore you can either agree or go against God's word which automatically makes you incorrect. Facts don't enter into it.

Facts as in facts that prove my assertion is incorrect?
I have a fact:
Atheists providing 'hard evidence' to 'prove' that atheists are not morons.
I can only assume that this is the same type of 'hard evidence' you idiots use to approach any subject matter?

The only question is, can you support my original assertion enough any more than you already have?

All you have to do is tell yourself the following:
"I am going to provide even more hard evidence that atheists are not morons. I have absolute proof through real credible sources that atheists are not fanatical morons."

Then you can post even more of that evidence that you so generously offered in your past posts.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

In other words, there is no point for an individual that is more interested in intellectual discussion than trash discussion to continue reading past this sentance?

Intellectual Discussion is "is the advancement, testing, and criticism of ideas and they are more central than personal relationships"

REFERENCE:

Dabbs,J.M. (1985). Temporal patterns of speech and gaze in social and intellectual conversation. In H.
Giles & R.N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recl'1lt advances in language, communication and social psychology (pp.
182-198). London: Erlbaum.


If you don't want your ideas be exposed to criticism (which is a big part of intellectual discussion) then you're participating in the wrong place. If you choose to ignore reality presented to you on a silver platter then you are in the wrong place.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Facts as in facts that prove my assertion is incorrect?
I have a fact:
Atheists providing 'hard evidence' to 'prove' that atheists are not morons.
I can only assume that this is the same type of 'hard evidence' you idiots use to approach any subject matter?

Your understanding of logic is quite novice. You can't prove a negative. You can contradict / falsify a positive.

The only question is, can you support my original assertion enough any more than you already have?

Last time I checked, Atheists hadn't raped and murdered babies in the name of anything. That would disqualify them from religious fanatacism. Had you read my post or paid attention in school, you would probably already know that.

All you have to do is tell yourself the following:
"I am going to provide even more hard evidence that atheists are not morons. I have absolute proof through real credible sources that atheists are not fanatical morons."

Again, you can't prove a negative. Your claim was however falsified in exquisite detail, you simply chose to not read it. It's all there should you decide not to embrace the path of ignorance.

Then you can post even more of that evidence that you so generously offered in your past posts.

All the necessary contradictive evidence has been shown to falsify your claims. No more is necessary. If you don't want to see it or don't understand it... that's your problem.

 

[oxypunk101]

Just curious Cool Skill, how old are you, what part of the country are you from, how much education have you received, and what qualifies you to discuss religious matters? I am finding your post hilarious and can just imagine a rather clever kid who is just trying to piss people off. People may be taking you way too serious, so knowing this information would help how serious we should take you (hope you do not lie as it is a sin to lie, wish things like this were more clearly on the internet).

 

[KennyJC]

Just curious Cool Skill, how old are you, what part of the country are you from, how much education have you received, and what qualifies you to discuss religious matters? I am finding your post hilarious and can just imagine a rather clever kid who is just trying to piss people off.

Considering he/she has thousands of posts, they must be serious. Normally I would imagine people who post using a satyrical method would probably create another account especially for it.

I've suspected several users as doing this before but the alias' escape me.

 

[SnakeLord]

and can just imagine a rather clever kid

That's one hell of an imagination you've got there.

Personally I find his stupidity quite offensive.

 

[lixluke]

Intellectual Discussion is "is the advancement, testing, and criticism of ideas and they are more central than personal relationships"

REFERENCE:

Dabbs,J.M. (1985). Temporal patterns of speech and gaze in social and intellectual conversation. In H.
Giles & R.N. St. Clair (Eds.), Recl'1lt advances in language, communication and social psychology (pp.
182-198). London: Erlbaum.

Atheist fanatics consider ‘hard evidence’ to be citing sources that do nothing more than restate their position.
If you cannot provide such ‘hard evidence’ from an outside source that does nothing more than restate your position, your position is obviously invalid.

Fortunately, many theists work the same way. They take a position, and cite various outside sources that restate the position. Take the bible for example.

Please provide more outside sources that do nothing but restate your position. Then refer to it as “hard evidence” so that you can show us how fanatical you really are.

All the necessary contradictive evidence has been shown to falsify your claims. No more is necessary. If you don't want to see it or don't understand it... that's your problem.

Oh yes. All that contradictive evidence. Such indisputable “hard evidence” that does nothing more restate your position. Can you be any more of a fanatical moron?

knowing this information would help how serious we should take you (hope you do not lie as it is a sin to lie, wish things like this were more clearly on the internet).

These are questions of Ad-hominem illogistics.
Logical individuals never ever consider who is making a statement. Logical individuals only consider the statements that are being made.
Focusing on ad-hominem is a common standard of untillects. Most untillects base their entire arguments on such standards. True intellects put zero validity into such absolutely irrelevant standards.
You can only prove a position true or false by focusing on the position it self. The age, race, gender, expertise of the individual has no effect on the validity of the position.
I think I have restated these 2 ideas about a gazillion times on this forum.
ANY CHARACTERISTIC OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROPOSING AN IDEA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE IDEA.
(This is what is known as a fact. You may argue this.)

ANYBODY THAT BEGINS MENTIONING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INDIVIDUAL SHOWS THAT THEIR MORONIC MIND HAS DEPARTED FROM ALL THAT IS LOGICAL, AND CANNOT FOCUS ON A SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT ALLOWING THEIR OWN UTTER STUPIDITY TO INFILTRATE THEIR PUTRID BRAIN.
(This is what is known as an opinion. You cannot argue this. Doing so only supports your moronicism. And if you are an atheist, arguing this supports the mornicism of atheists.)

would probably create another account

Although I've done so on other forums, I have never created an alt accoung on this forum for as long as I have been here. This is the first forum I have ever joined.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Just curious Cool Skill, how old are you, what part of the country are you from, how much education have you received, and what qualifies you to discuss religious matters? I am finding your post hilarious and can just imagine a rather clever kid who is just trying to piss people off. People may be taking you way too serious, so knowing this information would help how serious we should take you (hope you do not lie as it is a sin to lie, wish things like this were more clearly on the internet).

His age can be deduced by browsing through his threads. Clearly he is a teenager. His posts might be amusing if exposed to them for the first time but for anyone whom has seen his posts over the years, its just really sad.

Cool skill is a angry and somewhat hateful teenager who superimposes his ego on everything he writes (this enables him to feel justified in attacking people). What's makes it even sadder is that he condemns the very hate that he is practicioner of.

Here is an example from other threads that shows (in order) cool skill condemning hate, practicing hate, and attacking people who attack ideas:

Atheists are just short of being another rediculous hate group.

I hate Atheists

In many posts, atheists bash religion. Therefore, I bashed and insulted atheis.

I think part of his issue is self worth. He is obviously has an above-average writing ability for his age and has implied several times that being an independent writer is the perfect future job for him. Seeing that this is not a career path that the educational system provides, he may view the world as not valuing him. I noticed a couple of times where he was trying to justify the idea of being an independent writer on wellfare as preferrable to having a job that is something else.

Clearly he has growing up issues and has to figure out who he is and like himself.

 

[Muslim]

god dosen't exist you transsexual shit-for-brains robot slave to stupidity. Prove he/she/it does or shut the fuck up. That goes for all of you religious asswipes. Prove it or stay the fuck out of public view. It's embarassing for the rest of us and just fucks things up for everyone.

Theist: n. See dickwad.

Lol, the proof is the universe. There was not even enough atoms in the universe to support life after the big bang. The argument there is no god is a logical fallacy the arguments conclusion doesn't follow from the premises of the argument. Everything is based on, conjecture and lies for atheists.

 

[charles cure]

Atheist fanatics consider ‘hard evidence’ to be citing sources that do nothing more than restate their position.
If you cannot provide such ‘hard evidence’ from an outside source that does nothing more than restate your position, your position is obviously invalid.

Fortunately, many theists work the same way. They take a position, and cite various outside sources that restate the position. Take the bible for example.

Please provide more outside sources that do nothing but restate your position. Then refer to it as “hard evidence” so that you can show us how fanatical you really are.

you know, none of that changes the fact that you can't ever prove that your opinion of atheists as "fanatical morons" is based in fact. shit, if that's what you're tring to prove you aren't even going about it right, i'd like to see some statistics on intelligence of atheists vs religious people (of any or all creeds) and then maybe some evidence of their fanaticism, like what types of fanatical protests or groups atheists are a part of...etc. you either can't or won't provide any of that, because you don't actually have any interest in proving anything, what you want to do is asert your own opinion as somehow beyond reproach, and deride the opinions that oppose it. you condescend (ironically considering how stupid you seem to be), you deny the validity of any opposing statements, whether they provide some evidence to contradict your claims or not...you're just an indicator of what is truly wrong with our society. people make a claim. people come out in support or denial of that claim and back their assertions up with evidence. then those who do not want to accept the claim challenge the validity of the evidence and the character of those making an opposing assertion. then everybody squabbles over it ad nauseum until no one any longer knows the difference between truth and fiction thanks to a boatload of misinformation and misdirection. great job you're doing.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheist fanatics consider ‘hard evidence’ to be citing sources that do nothing more than restate their position.
If you cannot provide such ‘hard evidence’ from an outside source that does nothing more than restate your position, your position is obviously invalid.

Fortunately, many theists work the same way. They take a position, and cite various outside sources that restate the position. Take the bible for example.

Please provide more outside sources that do nothing but restate your position. Then refer to it as “hard evidence” so that you can show us how fanatical you really are.

The referece I provided is packed with measurability and repeatability that supports the definition. Simply put, it contains words that explain an aspect of reality that is verifiable. A bible on the other hand tells fantastic stories which have no verifiable base in reality.

Maybe anaology will help (I recall you like computers). I can claim that some DLL's can be registered and reference a Windows XP manual as evidence. Upon inspection of the manual you will find a description similar to:

'Some DLL's have a function within them called DllRegisterServer (). DLL's that have this function are said to be "registerable", meaning that that function can be executed with two command line utilities using the following syntax:

RegSvr32.exe *DLL Name*
RunDll32.exe *DLL Name* DllRegisterServer'

Ultimately, you can verify the contents of the manual by going to a computer and trying things out (this tests the claim against reality by using the information provided in the reference).

Oh yes. All that contradictive evidence. Such indisputable “hard evidence” that does nothing more restate your position. Can you be any more of a fanatical moron?

Assuming this is in reference to my larger post, it would be clear that my only position is that reality contradicts your claim. The information presented (all verifiable against reality) simply agrees. If you have a problem with this, its not with me... its with reality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Lol, the proof is the universe.

That's about as logical as stating that the existence of photons is proof that the zaboombafoo dimension exists. The existence of the universe is proof that a universe exists (not 'God').

There was not even enough atoms in the universe to support life after the big bang.

Inflationary theory shows that atoms wouldn't have existed until the recombination period (some 300k-400k years after the big bang). So what?

The argument there is no god is a logical fallacy the arguments conclusion doesn't follow from the premises of the argument. Everything is based on, conjecture and lies for atheists.

Any attempt to prove a neagtive is a logical fallacy. A contrdiction / falsification of an existing claim is something entirely different. We both know that 'God's' existenc has been claimed for thousands of years (and longer), yet no supportive evidence exists. Science is constantly finding more evidence to contradict specific claims of 'God'. What does that mean? Simple, absence of supportive evidence over thousands of years and existence of contradictive evidence falsifies the claim.

 

[superluminal]

Lol, the proof is the universe. There was not even enough atoms in the universe to support life after the big bang. The argument there is no god is a logical fallacy the arguments conclusion doesn't follow from the premises of the argument. Everything is based on, conjecture and lies for atheists.

Oh muslim, my poor backward friend. Crunchy is correct. Why are you so afraid of the observable truth?

 

[SkinWalker]

I think I have restated these 2 ideas about a gazillion times on this forum.
ANY CHARACTERISTIC OF AN INDIVIDUAL PROPOSING AN IDEA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO THE VALIDITY OF THE IDEA.
(This is what is known as a fact. You may argue this.)

ANYBODY THAT BEGINS MENTIONING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INDIVIDUAL SHOWS THAT THEIR MORONIC MIND HAS DEPARTED FROM ALL THAT IS LOGICAL, AND CANNOT FOCUS ON A SUBJECT MATTER WITHOUT ALLOWING THEIR OWN UTTER STUPIDITY TO INFILTRATE THEIR PUTRID BRAIN.
(This is what is known as an opinion. You cannot argue this. Doing so only supports your moronicism. And if you are an atheist, arguing this supports the mornicism of atheists.)

My, my. Look at all the caps. Tsk, tsk, Sean.

<img src="http://winace.andkon.com/pics/temper_tantrum.jpg">

 

[Crunchy Cat]

My, my. Look at all the caps. Tsk, tsk, Sean.

<img src="http://winace.andkon.com/pics/temper_tantrum.jpg">

Just look at the results of those horrible atheists fanatics!

 

[Muslim]

That's about as logical as stating that the existence of photons is proof that the zaboombafoo dimension exists. The existence of the universe is proof that a universe exists (not 'God').



Inflationary theory shows that atoms wouldn't have existed until the recombination period (some 300k-400k years after the big bang). So what?



Any attempt to prove a neagtive is a logical fallacy. A contrdiction / falsification of an existing claim is something entirely different. We both know that 'God's' existenc has been claimed for thousands of years (and longer), yet no supportive evidence exists. Science is constantly finding more evidence to contradict specific claims of 'God'. What does that mean? Simple, absence of supportive evidence over thousands of years and existence of contradictive evidence falsifies the claim.

Who was talking to you? or even taking you into consideration - only speak when spoken to. However I will address all your posts and then undress you and expose your little cock. You know nothing of physics or science.

 

[Muslim]

Oh muslim, my poor backward friend. Crunchy is correct. Why are you so afraid of the observable truth?

You're agreeing with him because you're his bitch. You little sheep. Don't worry though I will debunk his claims, as soon as am done using your ego as a urinal. You're a witless fool and a lobotomy patient who cannot comprehend the existence around him because he is so stupid so he concludes god doesn't exist. Atheists such as yourself have a finger tip-grip on reality and live in a Walter Mitty character world - everything is an overly elaborate fantasy for you guys.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Who was talking to you? or even taking you into consideration - only speak when spoken to.

This is a public forum and I'll do as I wish within the bounds of the forum rules. If you don't like it then you have a problem.

However I will address all your posts

May the force be with you.

and then undress you and expose your little cock.

Now you're making me all hot and horney. Wanna bang Muslim?

You know nothing of physics or science.

Just another claim to add to the pile right Muslim?